Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a DELETE operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., cascading impacts). The permission hint adds some context, but behavioral details like rate limits or error handling are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two parts: the action/resource and a permission hint. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's for deleting a company role, and the inclusion of the API endpoint path adds clutter without clear value for an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages), potential impacts, and doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., whether it affects associated users or permissions).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'id'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (DELETE) and resource (Company Role), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations on the server, such as 'delete_project_role' or 'delete_a_company_action_plan_templates', which could cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a permission hint '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', which provides some context about required access. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools for roles or resources), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.